Hmmm... I wouldn't mind trying Kassassian with the Sedins in the playoffs. Maybe his size can open some room for the sedins and maybe he can score some garbage goals while the sedins do their cycling. This would open up Burr to play on a checking line with Kes or Lap-Dawg.

We brought Roy in because we needed a good 2/3 line centre. I see it as a waste having him at wing or Kesler at wing. We need 4 strong lines rolling and we can do that with either keeping Roy as a centre or bringing up JS to play third line centre with Raymond and Hansen.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:OK, name 1 trade that Gillis totally robbed another team? I can't think of one. Sure, he made some nice signings like Hamhuis, Garrison and Sundin. Ehrhoff was definitely a nice pickup, but Doug Wilson just wanted to get rid of that contract, so he can add Heatley. Gillis was at the right place at the right time for that one and he deserves credit for it. I'm pretty sure Wilson knew he was receiving nothing in White/Rahimi.

Again, you're fixated on the need for a blockbuster trade or steal to justify a GM's performance. Blockbusters really don't happen often anymore, as it's always some team dumping an undesirable contract or a soon to be UFA. And what has Nonis done outside of the Luongo trade (and you can argue that Keenan gifted Luongo to Nonis as he was a bad GM)? The Ehrhoff trade was a steal. Patrick White was worth a 2012 2nd round pick so Wilson knew what he was getting. Gillis is simply better than Nonis at asset management: Gillis consistently got value out of his trades while Nonis did not.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:He was desperate and overpaid with a bunch of picks on a bunch of guys who did not come back the following year.

Some of those guys didn't come back because they couldn't crack an NHL roster. If what you say is true, Nonis was desperate and overpaid. Definitely not what a good GM would have done.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:I think Nonis had no choice. When Bert left and Jovo left, he let's crow go and brings in AV, Lou and Willie comes in, his team had to be more defensive orientated.

Of course there is a choice. Style of hockey is a choice. Didn't Burke say something to the effect that as long as he was here the Canucks would play uptempo hockey? If bringing in AV, Lou, and Willie meant that the team had to play the trap that was Nonis' fault.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Yes, Nonis did still have the WCE when he came on, but I think u are forgetting one thing that happens to all hockey players... father time. Nonis was probably hoping Nasi was still a front line player, but he was clearly not. U can say that Nonis failed to find a guy to play with Nasi, but I remember alot of ppl saying at the time that AV's defensive system hindered Nasi's talents.

Now whose fault was that? Nonis re-signed Naslund and banked on him being a frontline player. he was not. AV's system didn't suit Naslund's? Nonis hired AV to be the coach.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:Let me put it this way, it's a lot harder to acquire and develop guys who can play the top lines/top minutes like the Sedins, Kesler, Edler, Bieska, Luongo. It's a lot easier to find guys to play the 2nd-3rd lines and moderate minutes in the likes of Higgins, Lapierre, Malhotra, Weise, Roy, Booth, Ballard, Alberts, etc.

Tell that to Nonis. Nonis was fixated on the likes of Brunnstrom and Marc Chouinard.

Larry Goodenough wrote:Drafting outside of the top 5 or 10 spots is a coin flip.

The Bruins drafted Lucic, Marchand, Bergeron, Krecji outside of the first round. These four players are core key players for that team. They have a hot prospect named Camara who they drafted outside of the 1st round. Take a look at what the Blues have drafted outside the first round and late in the first round. Excuses, excuses...still doesn't explain why the Canucks prospect depth gets ranked as the worst in the league.

The Canucks bread and butter at the draft has always been outside the first round, excpet for Gillis.

BieksaAucoinWalkerPecaRaymondHansenCookeSchaeferOdjickBureEdleretc.,

Past management has had great success drafting outside the top 10 at the draft. Still waiting on Gillis first round picks

Larry Goodenough wrote:Drafting outside of the top 5 or 10 spots is a coin flip.

The Bruins drafted Lucic, Marchand, Bergeron, Krecji outside of the first round. These four players are core key players for that team. They have a hot prospect named Camara who they drafted outside of the 1st round. Take a look at what the Blues have drafted outside the first round and late in the first round. Excuses, excuses...still doesn't explain why the Canucks prospect depth gets ranked as the worst in the league.

The Canucks bread and butter at the draft has always been outside the first round, excpet for Gillis.

BieksaAucoinWalkerPecaRaymondHansenCookeSchaeferOdjickBureEdleretc.,

Past management has had great success drafting outside the top 10 at the draft. Still waiting on Gillis first round picks

KeslerSchneiderUmberger

You don't seem to understand how a coin flip contest might work.....

Is that like when you flip a coin and it either shows up heads or tails?

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

Zamboni Driver wrote:I'll disagree with you RD, I don't think that AV has done a great job.

In fact, I think BOTH Meds & RD are correct in parts: 1.) GMMG has screwed the pooch, and hasn't gotten the right parts to get the job done, and 2.) AV hasn't done a great job of managing & motivating the assets he has. We went from top 3 in both PP and PK to a powerplay that looks like crap. (although a little better lately) Maybe it isn't all his fault, regardless, if he can't get the team game working or if the players have tuned him out, he's overstayed his effectivness.

I don't argue that there are some moves that Gillis seems to have failed to make. I have never argued that, and I have often stated that there are some moves he's made that I don't like. In light of your post, Zamboni, I started this thread to compare both of these guys.

I do not think Edler should have been extended. I think Gillis should have pushed hard to include him in a package that would have secured the rights to Shea Weber. I'm not sure if he did try this or not. Maybe he did and that is why the extension for Edler came when it did.

I think that Ballard has not fit in here (obviously), and he should have been moved.

Booth has been a bust. Literally. He's been hurt more than he's been healthy.

If the rumors surrounding Hodgson being moved are true, then you can't fault any GM or coach for what happened.

As it stands today signing Lou to that contract was not a good move, but at the time it was necessary, and it was on par with what other GM's were doing for franchise players. If Schneider had not developed it would have been a great signing, Schneider turning into what we hoped when he was drafted, coupled with Luongo's playoff collapse in Boston, that made things difficult. Lou should have been traded already, but circumstances being what they have been, it has been difficult and no GM is going to give up a goaltender like Luongo for Scrivens and a couple of 2nd rounders. The bad blood between Gillis and Burke and Nonis has just made the situation much worse.

and no GM is going to give up a goaltender like Luongo for Scrivens and a couple of 2nd rounders. The bad blood between Gillis and Burke and Nonis has just made the situation much worse.

The Malhotra situation was awkward to say the least.

These are the only moves/non-moves that I think there can be fault found with Gillis, and obviously there have been some extenuating circumstances surrounding most of them.

So are Gillis and Vigneault both at fault?

I think so. But I don't think it is because Gillis has not tried to bring players in, and I don't think it is because the players here are incapable of getting it done. On paper this roster is one that most GM's in the league probably look at and turn green with envy. So why can't they come out and dominate games the way teams like Chicago and Anaheim have this year? Why are they so easy to shut down?

Meds, great thread!By the time I can write a proper reply, there are 9 pages.

I agree with most of what you've posted, except that I think we had to re-sign Edler. He's still tradable if a genuine blue chip #1 D-man comes along,

AV is stale and can't seem to motivate the team, he needs to go.

As for Gillis, I suspect he's heading for a C- or "fail" but right now it's incomplete.I do agree that he's done a decent job in previous years, and I agree with you about Booth, Ballard, Malhotra & Hodgson.However he hasn't gotten it done this year.

IMO his biggest failure was not getting a deal done for Lu at the beginning of the season when some teams were desperate for goaltending, now that Reimer & Holtby & Bobrovsky have developed, the number of teams willing to take on a long term deal is dwindling.

I've said for some time that IF (and it's a big if) the Leafs were willing to give us Franson & Bozak (maybe with a 2nd or 3rd pick), he should have taken the deal. It would have helped up through the season, and would give us better depth for a playoff run. IMO we need to make a deep run NOW as the Sedins are not getting younger. It would also have allowed us some flexibility to trade, or to sign some UFAs/RFAs this summer.

I would really love to know what was discussed at the start of the season, and what kind of an offer he could have gotten.

IF Gillis is able to get something spectacular this summer for Lu, then he will have done a good job.If he's only able to get a crap offer, (or a bag of pucks!) for Lu, then it was the wrong move to hold out, and let the team scrape through the year with Ebbett as our 2nd/3rd line center.

Zamboni Driver wrote:IF Gillis is able to get something spectacular this summer for Lu, then he will have done a good job.If he's only able to get a crap offer, (or a bag of pucks!) for Lu, then it was the wrong move to hold out, and let the team scrape through the year with Ebbett as our 2nd/3rd line center.

Luongo is definitely becoming an every growing question mark.

Nobody other than Gillis knows exactly what offers were made and what deals he offered at the end of last year and before for this season began. I don't think Luongo's price tag is too much. Or rather I think that it wasn't.

At this point his performances in the last 2 months, as few as they've been, have dropped his value. The season could NOT have ended on a poorer note for Luongo, and that really didn't help Gillis' efforts to move him.

If Gillis can get even so much as a 1st round pick in exchange for Lou, I think we should all be pretty happy with that.

That being said, I don't think this has anything to do with his contract. I do think that his contract made it difficult coming out of the lockout as GM's were all reluctant to take on term in light of what will be happening this summer and the cap dropping next year. Once the playoffs are over, and GM's know who they will be buying out, and what changes they will be making, I think that the first real viable time to trade Luongo will arrive just prior to draft day. But who knows what will happen.

Zamboni Driver wrote:IF Gillis is able to get something spectacular this summer for Lu, then he will have done a good job.If he's only able to get a crap offer, (or a bag of pucks!) for Lu, then it was the wrong move to hold out, and let the team scrape through the year with Ebbett as our 2nd/3rd line center.

Luongo is definitely becoming an every growing question mark.

Nobody other than Gillis knows exactly what offers were made and what deals he offered at the end of last year and before for this season began. I don't think Luongo's price tag is too much. Or rather I think that it wasn't.

Very true. We may not know for a long time if he screwed up or not.It's my opinion that if he was offered Franson & Bozak before the season began, he should have taken it.If on the other hand he was only offered a bag of pucks, then I can see why he didn't take the deal (but that will mean that are problems are much worse than thought)We HAVE to move him this summer.

Meds wrote:At this point his performances in the last 2 months, as few as they've been, have dropped his value. The season could NOT have ended on a poorer note for Luongo, and that really didn't help Gillis' efforts to move him.

If Gillis can get even so much as a 1st round pick in exchange for Lou, I think we should all be pretty happy with that.

I doubt it, but it'll be nice. More likely a 2nd/3rd liner & a 2nd/3rd pick

Meds wrote:That being said, I don't think this has anything to do with his contract. I do think that his contract made it difficult coming out of the lockout as GM's were all reluctant to take on term in light of what will be happening this summer and the cap dropping next year. Once the playoffs are over, and GM's know who they will be buying out, and what changes they will be making, I think that the first real viable time to trade Luongo will arrive just prior to draft day. But who knows what will happen.

\Nope, I think his contract is the problem, especially with the "Roberto Luongo" rule, so any team taking his contract will also get burned by "Cap recapture" if he retires before the final year

Hindsight is as they say 20-20. I think all of our expectations have been tempered throughout this but it needs to be MG's expectations that are in check. I think he will be glad to be done with it in the summer and as others have said the cap space itself is a valuable commodity to get in return. And Luongo may be more willing to move anywhere which may or may not have been a factor in all of this.

I still believe in fairytales and would love to see Luongo hoist the Cup this spring. It would be a fitting end to his time in Vancouver. Do it for Lou boys, do it for Lou!!

As far as Gillis not accepting a "so-called" offer from the Leafs, nobody knows what really happened there - if Gillis said "YES" and Lou said "NO" or if Gillis said "NO, we want more" and Lou said "TAKE THE DEAL MIKE, GET ME OUT OF HERE"

Hockey Widow wrote:I still believe in fairytales and would love to see Luongo hoist the Cup this spring. It would be a fitting end to his time in Vancouver. Do it for Lou boys, do it for Lou!!

vic wrote:As far as Gillis not accepting a "so-called" offer from the Leafs, nobody knows what really happened there - if Gillis said "YES" and Lou said "NO" or if Gillis said "NO, we want more" and Lou said "TAKE THE DEAL MIKE, GET ME OUT OF HERE"

Hockey Widow wrote:I still believe in fairytales and would love to see Luongo hoist the Cup this spring. It would be a fitting end to his time in Vancouver. Do it for Lou boys, do it for Lou!!

FAN wrote: Gillis is simply better than Nonis at asset management: Gillis consistently got value out of his trades while Nonis did not.

True, Gillis has a better track record with some of his trade deadline deals. I think I admitted that already. But, Gillis and Nonis were in different positions. Gillis was dealing from a position of strength as his canuck teams were like top teams heading into the playoffs, whereas Nonis was in a weaker position, scratching and clawing trying to get in. As I mentioned as well, trade deadlines were a bit different then. There were alot more deals back then, thus draft picks were more easily acquired. Today, teams are more reluctant to give up picks, thus u can get a better player with picks now.

Of course there is a choice. Style of hockey is a choice. Didn't Burke say something to the effect that as long as he was here the Canucks would play uptempo hockey? If bringing in AV, Lou, and Willie meant that the team had to play the trap that was Nonis' fault.

Sometimes u gotta play the style that would give your team the greatest chance to win. If u were the GM of the Devils back in the late 90s and early 2000 and u had the likes of Marty Brodeur, Scott Steven, Holik, Daneyko and had Jacque Lemaire coaching your team, would u get your team to play an offensive run and gun system or a defensive trap system? I dunno about u, but I'd get them to play the trap and bring in players that could play and excel in that kind of system. I don't care if it's ugly/boring hockey, if it gets me wins and a cup, that is all I care about.

The system and style don't matter as much, as long as u get the results. Let's look at how Nonis does with this style and system? 1st year with it (2007), he makes the playoffs and makes the 2nd round before getting knocked out by the eventual champs in the Ducks. I think most would agree there was no way the Nucks were going to beat a stacked team like the Ducks. 2nd year with it (2008), they miss the playoffs. I can't remember exactly what happened, but I remember the team had some injuires, especially in the backend again. I seem the recall the sedins being quite invisible down the stretch during the playoff push and Lou had a baby and he was flying back and forth from here and florida, it seemed to really take its toll on him and he wasn't really good. So, Nonis has 1 good year and 1 bad year since going with a defensive system (50%). Not great, but I think not too bad all things considered.

Now whose fault was that? Nonis re-signed Naslund and banked on him being a frontline player. he was not. AV's system didn't suit Naslund's? Nonis hired AV to be the coach.

It's always easy to play armchair quarterback and blame the GM a few years after something happened. It's like saying Pat Quinn, why didn't u draft Jagr instead of Nedved? Or Mike Gilllis, why didn't u take Eric Karlson or Jordan Eberle instead of Cody Hodgson? Hindsight is 50/50 man. So you're saying u wouldn't have resigned Nasi? At the time, Nasi was still a pretty good player and he was the captain of your team. U need some offence from somebody. I think u have to try to keep your franchise player, fan favourite and all-time points leader. Some players can still play at a high lvl at at an old age (ie - Selanne, Jagr, St. Louis), some can't (ie - Linden, D.Weight) and unfortunately Naslund fell into the later category.

Tell that to Nonis. Nonis was fixated on the likes of Brunnstrom and Marc Chouinard.

Yes, he brought in some dead wood. But he brought in some decent players too (some with much longer impact on the team than others). As already mentioned some great ones like Lou, Burr, Edler, Willie, Hansen. Some decent ones with shorter durations with the team: Carter, Krajick, Pyatt, Baumgartner. And he slowly worked in a couple young guys who he inherited and they have become impact players on the Canucks: Kesler and Bieksa.